A long, long time ago now a Lloyd-Carr coached Michigan team was struggling through the 2005 season when they met Northwestern. A lot of throws to Tacopants (Jason Avant's 11-foot-tall imaginary friend) on both sides later, Michigan emerged with a 33-17 win and I embarked on one of the first of an endless procession of stat-nerd diatribes about the evils of punting.

You've probably heard it already: punting decisions have not kept pace with the increasingly offensive nature of the game, leaving coaches in a perpetual state of risk- and win-avoidance. Romer paper, Pulaski High, Mathlete chart. Etc.

In this particular Northwestern game, though, Carr went for it on fourth and five from the Northwestern 23, a decision I thought was too aggressive(!). When paired with a number of similarly aggressive calls from earlier that season, it seemed like a sea change for the old man:

In multiple cases he's made tough, correct decisions: going on fourth and goal from the one against Wisconsin, pounding it into the line twice against Michigan State, etc. Even when the strategy has backfired, he accepts the downside and persists in a more aggressive posture.

In context, the Penn State gaffe seems more like one last hit of that sweet Bombay Popsicle* snuck in-between rehab sessions than evidence of 1970s thinking taking hold. Lloyd Carr has checked himself in to the Betty Ford Center for Coaches Addicted to Low Variance. I wouldn't expect a flying-colors discharge any time soon, but he's made the first, biggest step.

*[I don't know either.]

That change lasted into the fourth quarter of that year's Ohio State game. Having acquired a two-score lead by converting a fourth and inches around the Michigan 40, Carr reverted to his primitive instincts at the crucial moment. With three minutes left from the Ohio State 40, he called for a wide receiver screen on third and ten. It gained six yards. With a two point lead, three minutes on the clock, no Ohio State timeouts left, and a fourth and four on the Ohio State 34, Carr punted. Ohio State drove for a touchdown; Carr would never again have the opportunity to kill a game against the Buckeyes.

In the moment, Carr choked. Six years on that single decision seems like the best way to explain why a lot Michigan fans found his tenure frustrating despite its high rate of success: the program was perpetually making poor decisions because a combination of fear and arrogance. Something could go wrong if you made a high variance decision, and Michigan could spit on expected value because This Is Michigan. See any game in which Michigan acquired an 18-point lead or the first half of the Orange Bowl for confirmation.

Carr coached like he had a kickass running game and killer defense no matter the facts, which was the difference between being a legend and a being a B+ coach who lost the battle with Tressel authoritatively. Hell, even Tressel blew games when he failed to adjust to the reality that sometimes his defense and special teams were not enough, and he ran roughshod over the Big Ten for nine years.

-------------------------------------------

Part of the reason a segment of the Michigan fanbase (including the author) blew up at Hoke's hire is because it seemed to represent a return to that expectation-spurning 1970s decision-making.

Brady Hoke put a lot of those fears to rest by going for—and getting—the win against Notre Dame with eight seconds left. That decision was a no-brainer. If the field goal team had run out onto the field, I would have been livid. That was a test he passed, but it was one with a low bar.

On Saturday, Hoke sent out the punting team with about two and a half minutes left in the first half. It was fourth and two around midfield, and I was mildly peeved. It was not the percentage play, but I've watched a lot of football and it seemed too much to hope that even the rootin'est, tootin'est, eyepatch-wearingest pirate of a head coach would go for it. Needing more than a sneak and up fourteen in the first half, the world punts. My peevishness was directed at football coaches in general, not Hoke in particular.

And then.

And then an angel came down from the sky, and signaled timeout. Great trumpets erupted from the flagpoles, playing a fanfare as a golden staircase descended. Each of the steps was engraved with the names of World Series of Poker winners. Down from the clouds strode Doyle Brunson, clad in a jacket of hundred-dollar bills. And lo, Texas Dolly spaketh unto the people: "check-raise." Brady Hoke sent the offensive line onto the field.

This was a really, really good decision. Even if you don't believe the exact outlines of the Mathlete's calculations, it is not close: average offense versus average defense means the break-even line is around eight yards. This was not an average situation. Michigan had Denard Robinson against a pretty horrible run defense. And that number does not take into account the game situation. If Michigan gets the first down they are almost certainly robbing San Diego State of a possession. Punting gets you thirty, forty yards of field position. Getting the first down puts you in good position to score and is essentially another +1 in turnover margin. You need two yards and you have Denard Robinson.

stealing a joke from the internet: the guy on the right looks like he just looked into the Ark of the Covenant. via the News.

One speed option later Michigan was en route to the endzone and had essentially ended the game. Without that massively +EV decision they go into halftime up maybe 14, maybe 11, maybe 7 points. That ugly third quarter becomes the gut-check time most were predicting before the game. Maybe Michigan comes out on top (24-21, say). Maybe not. That didn't happen because when Michigan had its boot on San Diego State's neck, Hoke called Z 22 stomp right.

The Lloyd Carr example above shows we don't know that Hoke's going to do this consistently, that he'll stick to the non-pejorative MANBALL when the pressure is at its greatest, but so far so good. Even my doubts about Hoke's ability to math up in the waning moments of an Ohio State game are faint. When things go wrong he does not scowl or pout or throw headsets like Rich Rodriguez or Brian Kelly or Bo Pelini. He does not go on tilt. He calmly talks to guys about what in the hell they were thinking.

Hoke continues to leave best-case scenarios in the dust. Saturday night I watched Dennis Erickson punt on fourth and five from the USC 37 and thought "my coach would never do that." Then I watched Erickson chew out the punter who put the ball in the endzone because that's what happens when you punt from the 37 and thought "my coach would never do that."

That felt good. It felt invent-a-time-machine-to-assure-yourself-its-all-going-to-be-okay good. It feels like Michigan has finally learned how to gamble.

+EV Non-Bullets

Boy do I want to play poker with certain people on the internet. Evaluating the decision has popped up on every Michigan message board. It's mostly been met with praise, but man, there are a lot of people who can't estimate and multiply out there. Maybe it's Carr Stockholm syndrome.

That's a great question. Just as our rationality leads us to a belief in an objective reality, Kant believed there is an objective morality we can locate from the same process. The Categorical Imperative is an absolute, fundamental moral law on par with Minnesota losing to teams from the Dakotas. Things are either right or wrong—there are no gray areas, and context does not apply. You could call him the BJ Daniels of philosophy*.

*[Ten-cent summary of Kantian philosophy cribbed from Three Minute Philosophy, which is terrific. Philosophers wishing to quibble with my paraphrase of a comedic summary are invited to consider the moral consequences of their actions and also jump in a lake. USF fans wishing to WOO BJ DANIELS can skip to the latter.]

And the internet eeeed Countess. When Troy Woolfolk headed to the sidelines, all Michigan fans everywhere winced. When Blake Countess replaced JT Floyd in the third quarter, all Michigan fans everywhere prepared for the deluge.

It never came, and as a result everyone from my uncle to the internet to thenewspapers are having little freakouts about Michigan's #4 corner. I am with all of you. The only thing stopping Countess from having a few PBUs or interceptions was Ryan Lindley's inability to throw the ball anywhere near the guys Countess had blanketed but Lindley targeted anyway.

For most of the third quarter I stopped watching the offensive backfield and started watching downfield coverage and while I won't be able to confirm this on the tape I think Countess was doing really well even when people weren't going after him. I'm with the rest of the internet when I suggest that Troy Woolfolk should take the Minnesota game off to recover from his multiple nagging injuries so we can see some more of the freshman.

I thought Avery did well, too. He had a third-down slant completed on him and was the DB victimized on the touchdown but in both cases he was right there tackling/raking at the ball. Is he doing something wrong I'm not perceiving yet? Because I think he's playing better than Woolfolk, who gave up some groan-worthy easy completions. (I don't blame him for allowing Hillman to bounce on one third down conversion because he was clearly held.)

Release the Martin. This week in the I-told-you-so files: Mike Martin is just fine. His good day last week was obscured by EMU never throwing and having quite a bit of success attacking away from him. Against SDSU he was nigh unblockable, bowling a veteran offensive line over backwards multiple times and drawing holding calls left and right. Craig Roh had two big plays and will show up doing little things when I do the UFR; Will Campbell had a couple of line-pushing plays. Hillman's YPC was still over five, so there are issues but I think a big chunk of them are localizable to…

Problems. So… everyone's talking up Jake Ryan, too. I'm with everyone in a general, long-term sense but a little less enthused about his performance on Saturday. One of the results of the first few weeks of UFRing/picture paging is that whenever the opponent tries to get outside I immediately focus on Ryan. Result from last week: three "aaargh Ryan" screams that no one in my section comprehended. He's still giving up the corner way too easy.

Also, there are two caveats to an otherwise encouraging performance from the secondary. One: Lindley and his receivers were flat bad as a group. Drops, bad routes, and bad throws artificially boosted Michigan's efficiency against him. Some of that was caused by pressure. Some of it was just a crappy opponent. Two: I wonder if Michigan's familiarity with the SDSU offense allowed them to beat the Aztecs' favorite routes into Michigan DBs heads.

Still, 5.3 YPA and actual depth at corner. +1 Mallory.

Offensive construction bits. Another week, another confirmation that running Denard is the offense. While I still groan whenever they line up under center, snaps from there were limited. I would really prefer it if they never ran I-form power on first and ten again, though. They've mixed in some inexplicably effective short play action so far; if they can't run that will probably dry up.

Things I liked: That screen to Smith. The essence of an RPS+3 is when three offensive linemen have no one to block for 30 yards. And then the much-discussed speed option debuted. I'd gotten a couple insider emails telling me it was part of the offense but thought it would be extremely bad form to publish that, so I'd been waiting. It was quite a debut.

I'm hoping we see Borges add wrinkles at the same rate Rodriguez did. He'll have to to keep the run offense ahead of the wolves. He's off to a good start.

Tailbacks. I'm suddenly happy with Michigan's tailback situation after Vincent Smith made a lot of yards on his own, including the above touchdown where he kept his balance at about the five and managed to drag a safety into the endzone. There was also the zone play where he squeezed through a crack in the line it's possible literally no other D-I back would have fit through.

Toussaint, meanwhile, didn't have the yards Smith did but ran hard on the inside; I still like him best but understand if they're going to split duties between the top two. I feel bad for Shaw—maybe it's time to put him on kickoffs? He's got speed Smith does not.

The Denard question. So they did run a curl-flat. Denard went to the curl way late and threw his first interception. Not sure if that was schemed or just bad execution by the offense. If it's the latter that might be attributable to not running it over the offseason as Borges attempted to install his route packages, route packages that now seem like things Denard just can't do.

A three-point plan in an attempt to get Denard back on track:

Stop throwing on the run.

Provide some easy throws early—all hitch, snag—in an effort to get him calmed down.

Develop some sort of counter-punch to the opponent getting all up in Denard's face on the rollout PA. A shovel pass?

Bending but not breaking. Michigan's giving up a lot of yards but not a lot of points. Frankly, some of this is luck. They are acquiring turnovers at an unsustainable rate. Not unsustainable for a mediocre defense, unsustainable for Michigan 1997. When the well dries up they'll do some more breaking.

The other thing is the secondary. Michigan's newfound ability to make plays on deep balls and Jordan Kovacs being stone-cold reliable (so far /crosses self) have erased cheap touchdowns for the opposition. WMU's touchdown came on a 15-play drive. ND touchdown drives went 7, 10, 7, and 4 plays. San Diego State's took six plays but started from the Michigan 38. The only quick drive Michigan's given up all year was ND's desperation drive, on which Michigan gave up chunks on purpose because of the time situation and then tried an NFL-style defense they weren't ready for and blew it. The longest touchdown other than that was the 16-yard pass Lindley hit in the third quarter.

Opponents have ripped off chunks on occasion, but they have not been handed free touchdowns. Michigan's at least making them earn it. That's a necessary first step on the road away from completely awful.

The next opponent. When Minnesota managed to hang with USC on the first weekend of the season they seemed like they might be more intimidating than your average Minnesota team. Then they lost to Not Even The Good New Mexico and North Dakota State and seemed even less intimidating than your average Minnesota team. Compounding matters: Jerry Kill is again out of commission with his seizure issue.

Drumline? Drumline:

Here

I did not VOAV this week for reasons of being spooked. Boyz In The Pahokee provided the usual bounty if you are jonesing.

Matt Wile. Wait, let me try that again. MATT WILE!!! Yeah, I think he was properly pumped up to play his Dad's team. Net yards per kickoff were 50 for SDSU and 49.2 for UofM. To be even on kickoffs is a win for us. Net yards per punt were 34.7 for SDSU and 43.5 for Michigan. To gain almost a full first down per punt is huge. Two punts were inside the 20, and two were 50+ yards. #82, Terrance Robinson had 2 ST tackles and did a great job as the gunner on punts.

Wile's just lost his punting job; if that allows him to improve his kickoffs and compete for the field goal job, Michigan's kicking could be one of those strength things by midseason.

Michigan needs Hagerup back. Maybe Hagerup isn't the only answer. Wile's kicks are improving it would seem, both on KOs and punts, possibly because his nerves are settling down. Kickoffs regularly made it to the goal line and only 1 of 4 punts was returned for much while they averaged 49 yards per with a long of only 51(!).

After the Notre Dame game, I tweeted very simply: "And the singing, Captain?" "Let them sing." The moment was too good to start worrying about the future. But at some point, the future arrives and you need to deal with it. How well prepared you are for that future plays a large role in how well you're able to handle it when the moment arrives. The non-conference schedule, particularly one played as four games at the start of the season should, theoretically, be a nice combination of challenges and the working out of kinks. Before the mission starts, you must know the capacity and capabilities of your crew.

Fifth-year senior defensive tackle Ryan Van Bergen caught Hillman from behind inside the 10-yard line and knocked the ball loose for the second fumble.

Try reading it this way: a 288-pound defensive tackle caught the nation’s second-leading rusher from behind in the open field — 30 yards away from the line of scrimmage.

Van Bergen got a block from fifth-year senior defensive tackle Mike Martin, but most of his help came from practice.

“But when it comes down to it, we have the most explosive player in the country in our backfield,” Van Bergen said. “We get to play against (junior quarterback) Denard (Robinson), so we’ve learned how to take angles at guys who have speed.

“I took off on my horse just thinking, ‘I’ve almost caught Denard before, maybe I can catch this guy.’ ”

“They were very emotional after the game, depressed, disappointed, upset, however you want to say,” said Long, whose team dropped to 3-1 after Saturday’s 28-7 defeat. “It was a very emotional locker room after the game and not in a good sense.”

They probably would have done a “poor job” of answering questions, Long said, so he kept them behind closed doors. “It’s my job to protect them,” Long said Sunday. “This is not pro football.” …

"The defense got shocked by the speed of especially one guy (Robinson),” Long said. “They got shocked by the strength they had up front and the speed of quarterback early in the game.”

• Offensively, Michigan is 13-for-13 on red-zone opportunities. It is one of 13 teams in the country to have scored on every trip inside the 20-yard line this year.

• Even better? The Wolverines have scored touchdowns on 12 of those 13 trips. That 92-percent touchdown rate trails only Texas Tech nationally.

One of the main arguments made in favor of Shotgun Forever is that red zone efficiency is not a stat that shows much repeatable skill year to year and that the huge chunks of yards Michigan picked up without, you know, scoring in 2010 would turn into points if you just left the damn thing alone (and got a kicker). The early returns are excellent.

- Michigan 28, San Diego State 7. Brady Hoke’s new team faced his old team, and I’m still not sure, despite their 4-0 record, that we know anything about this Michigan football team. The defense seems to be improving under DC Greg Mattison, but they’ve been using so much movement and motion to cover up their talent weaknesses it’s unclear how the defense will fare against a polished opponent. And while the offense has found a better rhythm running a Rich Rodriguez-lite Denard Robinson attack — including Denard’s long TD run on the speed option — his passing line was abysmal: 8 of 17 for 93 yards, no TDs and two interceptions. He’s obviously uncomfortable in the new offense. He looked like a more polished and comfortable passer last year. I chalk some of this up to the fact that the very techniques he’s using are new, but he’s going to have to improve for UM to have success. That said, given Michigan’s favorable schedule — no Wisconsin and the easy part of the Big 10 schedule up next — we may not learn anything about Michigan until the last three weeks of the season, when they play Illinois, Nebraska and Ohio State.

No one else bothered. A couple weeks after puntosauring himself into a loss against Iowa State, BHGP documents Kirk Ferentz opening Iowa's game against ULM in a shotgun spread, demonstrating the Carr thing above perfectly.

Comment viewing options

As God is my witness (I actually have a couple of human witnesses), when Michigan went for it on fourth down, I said, "Brian Cook is going to love this!"

Oh, and the Conch shell -- it is supposed to be a horn. You blow into it; it makes a horn-like noise. If Monty was also listening to it like a cellphone, that particular Conch must have some new apps that old Conchs did not have.

The quick-drop pass over the middle to Drew Dileo. I think we have run that play at least once in every game this year, and if my memory serves me, in four tries the play has gone for two first downs and a touchdown.

This is the single funniest sentence I've read on this blog in a long time. Just picture it people...PICTURE IT...an angel swooping down to Hoke's shoulders whispering "call a timeout, coach". Ah, that was a good laugh. And the perfect metaphor.

[Of course, the rest of the paragraph is also hilarious. But that first sentence is gold.]

That first bullet is basically about that conversation. You did your best, but when someone starts arguing that the specific sociopolitical factors of the 2011 SDSU-Michigan game make years of data irrelevant there's no point in talking any more.

every single context-specific factor points in favor of going for it there. Michigan's run offense is above average. SDSU's run defense is well-below average and had been getting gashed. Michigan's defense had been outperforming expectations, and SDSU's offense had been underperforming. Getting extra points there and potentially putting the game out of reach before SDSU's offense had a chance to wake up is really, really valuable, and the odds of converting given the respective personnel of both teams is really high.

Anyone who thinks punting there is clearly correct is secretly Tom O'Brien.

I don't understand what all the debate is about. I don't understand your fancy math. I don't understand all of your fancy words. All I know is that if the BTN announcers say that punting is a "no-brained" you go for it regardless of all other variables.

having the same discussion with the guys around me. I was go - go - go and they were "no - up 14 - 0 you gotta punt". I loved the call. We were obviously better inside the tackles.

When I watched the game that night, I loved the fact that Hoke did not have a headset on (ie - he wasn't talking to Al up in the box), he calls time out and simply says "offense, lets go" (or something to that effect ... then never gets in the offensive huddle - as he lets the offensive coaches and AB take care of business. This is great coaching because Hoke knew we could get the 1st down. He displayed confidence not only with his offense, but with his offensive coaches. He did not micro-manage the situation ... as too many coaches do.

When he was hired, I was initially concern about his game day coaching ... but so far I would rate him with a 9 out of 10.

There was also a bit of a puntosaur moment in last year's SDSU-Missouri game. SDSU had it fourth and eight from the Missouri 37 with 1:22 left in a four-point game and punted. I'm not sure that's a horrible decision since at that point Gabbert was averaging 5.3 YPA and the time pressure for the opposition is significantly greater than the 2005 OSU game. Missouri scored in two plays, of course.

It would have been interesting to see what happened if the WR screen Hoke called had gained a few yards instead of losing one.

A big reason Hoke went for it was confidence in his D. With Hoke a lot of decisions might come down to feel, and probably explains why he punted against Missouri last season. In my opinion either way you go for it. Having confidence in your D is a reason to go for it and not having confidence in your D is a reason to go for it.

Do you think the players on defense notice the confidence in them that you mention? In other words, when Hoke decides to go for it, do the defensive guys know its because Hoke trusts them to keep SDSU out of the endzone if the conversion fails?

I suspect that the dependency of players' opinions of their coaches' "confidence" in them on said coaches' decision to punt or not punt, is far, far less than what the media makes it out to be. I don't see any reason to believe that there's a football player on any football team who, after a failed fourth-down attempt in a position where most teams would have punted, says to himself, "coach doesn't trust us, we must really suck, I give up."

In other words, other than in extreme circumstances (down 49-20 in the third quarter and going for it on 4th and 20 from your own 5, for instance), I don't buy "showing confidence in your defense" as a reason to punt or not punt. Football players are football players, not fraglie-psyched twelve-year-olds.

Hoke mentioned it in his presser, so if they didn't know at the time they know now. Really it was a vote of implicit confidence by Hoke in both the O and the D by going for it. I think the players knew they were playing well, and could only come to the conclusion that Hoke had confidence in the O and the D to get it done no matter what transpired. I don't see anyway it could be construed as a choice out of desperation, hence Brian talking about the boot and throat thing.

It's not that baffling. Who was his most influential head coach? Lloyd. Who's tendancies can we assume he'd pick up? Lloyd's.

But you can go around in circles with this stuff. Moeller was very different, philosophically, than Bo, and Carr even moreso. For that matter, RR is from the Bo coaching tree (his mentor was Bo's old assistant, Don Nehlen), and obviously he went in a new direction. History has shown that each coach in the tree is his own man.

How long before we stop asking if Campbell is totally, truly legit? So many pleasant storylines on D this year.

As for Minnesota, I think the USC game is a good indicator that they have a really good coach but a really bad team. Good coaches should outperform expectations in game one and bowl games, because they have more time to prepare. But bad/young/new players will catch up with you in the grind of the season. Dramatically so in Minnesota's case.

the quote: " it’s unclear how the defense will fare against a polished opponent."

as to his general point - agreed.

as to his specific point - the "polished opponent" part? i'm not sure how often that will happen this season...northwestern, if persa is healthy. msu, if cousins is playing well. nebraska, i guess, and illinois. ohio state, purdue, minnesota, iowa - i like our chances defensively against those guys.

Is that a "speed option" they ran or a "load option"? IIRC Smith lined up on Denard's left and then whipped behind him in motion during the snap. Does a "load option" need a fullback leading? I used both in NCAA 11 and they worked really well, but were different plays. I don't think it matters, as I loved the play (and the result) just asking for clarification.

I'm not an expert on the option, but I believe the load option requires linemen (typically the backside guard) to pull. I don't remember anyone pulling on that play, so I think it was just a speed option.

so I drew up some MS Word stuff, these are my understandings of the terms as used in the NCAA 11 (and 12) playbooks. What we ran was neither of these, as Smith whipped around Denard, but there was no lead blocker. I'm more curious than anything

Also, if anyone knows where to find the NCAA playbooks online, that would help. A google search didn't work

both the speed and the load option, but there was no lead blocker in either play: the backfield was just DR and Smith, and at the snap, Smith looped around. Since there was no lead blocker, I think it's more of a speed option.

I think the idea was that, with Smith lined up, say, to Denard's left, the defense would cheat to Denard's left, thinking the speed option would be going that direction. By looping Smith in the other direction, you get the same quick feel of a speed option.

There was also a TE on the play side of the option, rather than the 5 man line shown in the diagram. On the TD, Koger got a great kickout block on the end that opened the alley for Denard to cut into. The LBs may have screwed up by both jumping outside, but I think they were surprised that Denard's route went through the RT-TE hole rather than around the corner.

Also, on that play, Smith starts celebrating the moment that Denard cut upfield. That hole must have looked huge.

You scream UFR-like wisdom during the game from your prime location seating?? WHO OWNS THE SEATS BEHIND YOU and why aren't they quickly becoming Ebay entrepeneurs by selling these with pre-installed celebrity commentary from the proprietor of Internet's premiere Michigan football entity/blog?????

ALSO:
COUNTESS. He should enjoy this experience as a non-starter this year, because it'll certainly be his last.

Blake plays with an attitude much like Warren and dare anyone say "Woodson" (not saying he is - but IMHO this kid is FAR better than Morgan Trent was as a senior). I was just like Brian when he came in for Floyd, because suddenly our corners were both backups - and I watched Countess rather than the play itself (which is impossible to do watching on TV). Blake was VERY impressive ... he covers and he hits! He took down a SDSU wideout one on one in space. He gave up coverage only once that I saw and that was a defensive call where the CB's played soft.

were you able to be at the SDSU game? Only ask because the overall view is just so much better when you are evaluating players. I really do like Floyd, who has received a lot of negatives from posters (not that it matters), and Avery. My concern with Avery, is that he tends to defense the player without regard to the ball, whereas Floyd and Countess both have the ability to look for the ball (Floyd was about .5 of a second from a pick 6) - where I think that Avery may have tackled the receiver after the catch. Blake just needs more game time, because once he gets the "feel" I think he will be a lockdown corner.

I am concerned that Troy may never regain that game 1 health ... which is very sad for a kid with his skills and desire.

Avery always see's and feels the ball. He just reacts a little to late from time to time. For instance when he gave up the touchdown, he had the WR covered wonderfully. couldnt cover it better he just reacted on the ball late. Then theres times like last year verse Indiana where he reacts perfectly and gets a Pass break up. His reactions very but he always has really good coverage on the reciever.

a long, long, long, long, long way when you're out there on the island... but at the very least I see Countess really pushing Avery, if not surpassing him all together by next fall.

On the other hand, I guess the same might be argued about Avery pushing Floyd. Is this that 'depth' problem that supposedly exists in the rest of the football world? Let us be inundated in every position group with such hardships.

"When things go wrong he does not scowl or pout or throw headsets like Rich Rodriguez or Brian Kelly or Bo Pelini. He does not go on tilt. He calmly talks to guys about what in the hell they were thinking."

I watched the ND game with my wife, who couldn't stand Rodriguez because of his sideline tantrums, and when they showed Hoke shortly after ND's go ahead TD she turned to me and asked: "How is he calmer than you are?"

Now that I have your attention, did people find this to be true with the women in their lives? Or is it just a "most women don't know that much about football, so they act like a lot of men who don't know much about football"? Because while the women on MGoBlog, who are obviously more into it than most, don't seem to have this reaction at all, a lot of the women I know who just have an outside interest in Michigan football (may watch the games, but hardly are experts on the sport) seem to have a similiar reaction to the wife in the story. Maybe not for the same reason, but they never seemed to warm to Rich, but they almost instantly loved Hoke. This ISN'T a bash on Rich, because it is most likely an unfair and unfounded judgement by people...but it's one I found to be oddly common. I don't know if it's Rich's kinda cocky because I really know my football vibe, or if it's the thick layer of cheese Brady drops that must go over great with a recruit's mother, but I'd say a majority of women I know never really, to steal a phrase from our coach, "felt" Rich, but really like Hoke. It may just because in these cases there's a bigger percentage of women who are in the generic fan level, which puts them down at the "I believe the Free Press" at best, and at worst "Dick Rod" level, where as there's more men who look into it more deeply, but Oystermonkey's observation seemed familiar, to me at least.

Was anyone else freaked out every time SDSU flipped their formation? The D-Line's resulting switch scared me every time - I was constantly wondering if they were going to get set in time. I don't remember ever seeing this happen so many times in one game. Is it normal?

It's normal for us this year. We've done it every game. Michigan used to do it back in the old days, too. I'm guessing SDSU saw us doing it this season and decided to make the shifts in order to get us out of position. It didn't help, obviously.

I don't remember it happening that frantically back in the old days but my memory is terrible. Is Michigan flipping the formation in order to keep the SDE on the strong side and WDE on the weak side? Did I just reveal my ignorance?

We want the SDE on the strong side at all times, especially in a 4-3 Under. Although at times the LBs just shifted into a 4-3, out of the 4-3 Under. When SDSU flipped their strong side, we did the same

Yes, that's what they're doing. They want the SDE on the strong side at all times. And frankly, I'd assume that the linebackers have a lot to do with it, because I'm not sure I'd want Hawthorne suddenly playing SAM. Teams could run all over us if they could easily kick him out, since he's somewhat small for a linebacker.

I know less about pre-snap matters than I probably should, but doesn't it seem like there would be an obvious counterpunch to that counterpunch? Like, induce M to flip flop its line around and then quick snap it while Jibreel and RVB are bumping into each other. Seems like something that could be easily scouted and capitalized on.